Office of the Historian

54. Memorandum From the President’s Administrative Assistant (Manatos) to President Johnson1

Washington, September 26, 1966, 11:50 a.m.

It has come to my attention via the grapevine that even our friends are becoming increasingly concerned about Foreign Aid. I have it on good authority, for instance, that in an “off-the-record” mood in Committee recently Senator Pastore was highly critical of aid to many of the emerging African Nations saying that it’s impossible for him to defend some of our requests on the Senate Floor when he has doubts in his own mind. I am trying to get a more informative reading of that meeting.

For several weeks I have discussed Foreign Aid with friendly Senators, staff people who are our friends, and some of those engaged directly in the liaison end of the program. Out of this have come certain views which I submit in the hope they will provide a dialogue which could [Page 158] possibly reshape our AID program and make it more palatable to Congress. These views are not mine alone but represent the thoughts of seasoned observers.

Probably the most telling argument against Foreign Aid is that it is so fragmented that it is impossible to ascertain either the full extent of or the total expenditures which go into foreign assistance. These arguments, used effectively by Otto Passman (who claims 16 agencies now involved) and Wayne Morse, include the Peace Corps, P.L. 480, various banking and lending agencies, AID and the Department of Defense.

It is our judgment that the best way out of this problem is to give Foreign Aid a “new look.” This might be accomplished by:

(1)
Appointing an Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign Assistance Coordination charged with pulling together all facets of Foreign Aid into one office.
(2)
Instead of Congressional Liaison efforts carried out by AID, State and Defense (with the temptation of each to undercut the other in playing on Congress for funds) one Foreign Aid Congressional Liaison Office could be established. That office could have under its jurisdiction and control possibly 3 liaison officers and staff, all under the new Assist-ant Secretary of State. All other Foreign Aid liaison personnel would be withdrawn, and the congressional committees notified. One real complaint of members of Congress is that a half-dozen liaison people will call them on the same Foreign Aid bill, all from different agencies. Machinery could be established which would insure representation at staff level at State of proper individuals from agencies concerned with every facet of Foreign Aid, but that agency staff would not work the Hill.
(3)
The President’s Foreign Aid message should encompass all elements of Foreign Aid now looked upon as such by Congress, regardless of the agency administering the program. Properly explained to the Congress, this “all my eggs in one basket” could better be sold even though initially the basket might appear larger.
(4)
The new Secretary would absorb AID under instructions from the President to submit new Foreign Assistance legislation rather than to request additional amendment of existing law. Wayne Morse seems to get mileage out of this argument.2
(5)
It is becoming increasingly difficult to equate Military Assistance to the mutual security of the United States, the argument being that this kind of assistance to Latin America and Africa, for example, does no such thing, or does very little.3
(6)
Serious thought should be given to reducing the number of countries receiving grant military assistance, probably to not more than 10 in number. These should be countries on the periphery of the Sino-Soviets which can not maintain large military establishments.
(7)
Eliminate grant military assistance to Latin America and Africa.
(8)
Charge against the budgets of the services utilizing foreign military bases the rental price charged us—Rota into the Navy budget, etc.
(9)
Transfer the entire remaining military assistance program into the D.O.D. budget by amending Title 10 of the U.S. Code.4 This would give the Armed Services Committee jurisdiction.

Such a transfer would remove the guilt-by-association abuse that the rest of the Foreign Aid program takes at the hands of critics over incidents like Cyprus (Greece-Turkey), India-Pakistan, the Latin American coups, etc.

  1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Subject File, Foreign Aid [1 of 3], Box 16. No classification marking. A handwritten note on the source text presumably by President Johnson to Rostow reads: “W—send to Schultze for comment—L”↩
  2. A handwritten note to the right of this paragraph reads: “O.K.”↩
  3. A handwritten note to the right of this paragraph reads: “except tg. [?]”↩
  4. Title 10 of the U.S. Code covers the Armed Forces. ↩